Connect with us

RSS

Navigating Israel’s Nuclear ‘Samson Option’

Israel’s nuclear reactor near Dimona. Photo: Wikicommons

In any rationality-based strategic calculus, the “Samson Option” — which refers to an Israeli nuclear strike — would refer not to a last-resort act of national vengeance, but to a persuasive limit on existential threats.

When taken together with Israel’s intentionally ambiguous nuclear strategy, an outdated doctrine commonly referred to as “deliberate nuclear ambiguity” or “Israel’s bomb in the basement” (amimut in Hebrew), more compelling threat postures could prove effective. To be truly promising, however, an Israeli Samson Option would need to 1) coincide with an incremental and selective end to “deliberate nuclear ambiguity” and 2) pertain to Iran directly, not just to terrorist proxies.

There are no conceivable circumstances in which Samson could offer Israel useful applications regarding Hamas, Hezbollah, the Houthis, or any other jihadist foes.

Israeli strategists will need to consider factors beyond what is taking place right now between Israel and its jihadist adversaries. Since military crises in other parts of the world could spill over into the Middle East, strategic planners should begin to clarify Israel’s operational preparations regarding Samson. This is especially the case where a spill-over could involve the threat or actual use of nuclear weapons.

Though Iran is still “only” pre-nuclear, it already has the capacity to use radiation dispersal weapons and/or launch conventional rockets at Israel’s Dimona nuclear reactor. Moreover, Tehran has close ties to Pyongyang, and it is not inconceivable that a nuclear North Korea might operate as a strategic stand-in for a not-yet-nuclear Iran.

For disciplined Israeli strategists, geopolitical context matters. There can be no logic-based assessment of probabilities because the events under consideration would be unprecedented. In logic and mathematics, true probabilities can never be ascertained out of nothing. They can be drawn only from the determinable frequency of pertinent past events.

These are not narrowly political or intuitive calculations. As an operationally meaningful concept, the Samson Option references a residual deterrence doctrine founded upon credible threats (whether implicit or explicit) of overwhelming nuclear retaliation or counter-retaliation. These are unconventional threats to thwart more-or-less expected enemy state aggressions. Reasonably, any such massive last-resort doctrine could enter into force only where enemy aggressions would imperil Israel’s continued existence as a viable nation-state. In the absence of expected aggressions from Iran, Israel would more prudently rely upon an “escalation ladder.”

For doctrinal clarity, Israel’s nuclear forces should always remain oriented to deterrence ex ante, never to revenge ex post. It would do Israel little good to proffer Samson-level threats in response to “ordinary” or less than massive forms of enemy attack. Even where the principal operational object for Israel would be counter-terrorist success against Hamas, Hezbollah, etc., invoking Samson could make sense only vis-à-vis Hamas state patron Iran or Iran’s nuclear patron North Korea. In such nuanced calculations, assumptions of rationality could prove problematic.

For Israel’s nuclear deterrent to work against a still non-nuclear Iran, it is virtually inconceivable that it would need to include a Samson Option. In any crisis between Israel and Iran involving jihadist terror, Israel could almost certainly achieve “escalation dominance” without employing Samson. But if Iran were already an authentic nuclear adversary, its capacity to enhance surrogate terror capabilities would exceed any pre-nuclear constraints of competitive risk-taking. In these circumstances, Samson could prove necessary.

Israel’s basis for launching a preemptive strike against Iran without Samson could be rational only before that state turned verifiably nuclear. A foreseeable non-Samson plan for preemption would involve more direct Iranian involvement in the continuing terror war against Israel on behalf of Hamas, Hezbollah, etc. By setting back Iranian nuclear efforts and infrastructures, such pre-Samson involvement could offer Israel an asymmetrical power advantage in the region. This larger opportunity would be the result of Israel’s not yet having to fear a nuclear war against Iran.

There would be related matters of intra-crisis communications. As an element of any ongoing strategic dialogue, the basic message of an Israeli Samson Option would need to remain uniform and consistent. It should signal to an adversary state the unstated promise of a counter-city (“counter value”) nuclear reprisal. Israel would also need to avoid signaling to its Iranian adversary any sequential gradations of nuclear warfighting.

Israel’s “bottom line” reasoning would likely be as follows: For Israel, exercising a Samson Option threat is not apt to deter any Iranian aggressions short of nuclear and/or massively large-scale conventional (including biological) first strikes. Therefore, Samson can do little to prevent Iran from its enthusiastic support of anti-Israel jihadists.

Whatever the Samson Option’s precise goals, its key objective should remain constant and conspicuous. This objective is to keep Israel “alive,” not (as presented in Biblical imagery) to stop the Jewish State from “dying alone.” In this peremptory objective, Israeli policy should deviate from the Biblical Samson narrative.

Ultimately, Samson, in all relevant military nuclear matters, should be about how best to manage urgent processes of strategic dissuasion. At least for now, Israel’s presumed nuclear strategy, though not yet clearly articulated, is oriented toward nuclear war avoidance and not to nuclear war fighting. From all standpoints, this represents Israel’s only correct orientation.

The Samson Option could never protect Israel as a comprehensive nuclear strategy by itself. This option should never be confused with Israel’s more generalized or “broad spectrum” nuclear strategy, one that would seek to maximize deterrence at incrementally less apocalyptic levels of military engagement.

At this point, various questions will need to be raised. Above all: How can the Samson Option best serve Israel’s general strategic requirements? Though the primary mission of Israel’s nuclear weapons should be to preserve the Jewish State — not to wreak havoc upon foes when all else has seemingly been lost — obvious preparations for a Samson Option could still improve Israel’s nuclear deterrence and preemption capabilities.

As soon as possible, even during the current Gaza war with Hamas, Jerusalem will need to shift from “deliberate nuclear ambiguity” to “selective nuclear disclosure.” Among other things, this explicit shift would allow Israel to clarify that its nuclear weapons are not too large for actual operational use against Iran. In essence, this complex clarification would be the reciprocal of Israel’s Samson Option and would cover the complete spectrum of Israel’s nuclear deterrence options.

There will be corresponding legal issues. Israeli resorts to conventional and defensive first strikes could prove permissible or law-enforcing under authoritative international law. In such cases, Israeli preemptions would contain a jurisprudential counterpart to nuclear weapons use. This counterpart should be referenced formally as “anticipatory self-defense.”

Concerning long-term Israeli nuclear deterrence, recognizable preparations for a Samson Option could help convince Iran or other designated enemy states that massive aggressions against Israel would never be gainful.  This could prove most compelling if Israel’s “Samson weapons” were 1) coupled with some explicit level of nuclear disclosure (thereby effectively ending Israel’s longstanding posture of nuclear ambiguity); 2) recognizably invulnerable to enemy first strikes; and 3) “counter-city”/”counter-value” in declared mission function. Additionally, in view of what nuclear strategists sometimes refer to as the “rationality of pretended irrationality,” Samson could enhance Israeli nuclear deterrence by demonstrating a more evident Israeli willingness to take existential risks.

On occasion, the nuclear deterrence benefits of “pretended irrationality” could depend on prior Iranian awareness of Israel’s counter-city or counter-value targeting posture. Such a posture was recommended some 20 years ago by the Project Daniel Group in its confidential report to then Israeli prime minister Ariel Sharon. Residually, however, to best ensure that Israel could still engage in nuclear warfighting if its counter-value nuclear deterrence were to fail, Israel would more openly adopt a “mixed” counter-value/counter-force nuclear targeting doctrine.

In reference to strategies of preemption, Israeli preparations for a Samson Option — explicit, recognizable and not just sotto voce — could help convince Israel’s leadership that defensive first strikes could sometimes be gainful.

In all cases involving Samson and Israeli nuclear deterrence, visible last-resort nuclear preparations could enhance Israel’s preemption options by underscoring a bold national willingness to take existential risks. However, displaying such risks could become a double-edged sword. The fact that these are uncharted waters and there exist no precedents from which to extrapolate science-based probabilities means Israel would need to move with determination and caution.

What about “pretended irrationality?” That complex calculus could become a related part of Samson. Israel’s leaders will need to remain mindful of this integration. Brandished too “irrationally,” Israeli preparations for a Samson Option, though unwitting, could encourage Iranian preemptions. This peril would be underscored by pressures on both Israel and Iran to achieve intra-crisis “escalation dominance.” Also significant in this unpredictable environment of competitive risk-taking would be either or both sides’ deployment of expanding missile defenses.

This hearkens back to the early days of Cold War nuclear deterrence between the United States and the Soviet Union, days of “mutually assured destruction” or MAD. Either Israeli or Iranian efforts to reduce nuclear retaliatory force vulnerabilities could incentivize the other to more hurriedly strike first; that is, to “preempt the preemption.” In reference to international law, close attention would then need to be directed toward the peremptory rules of “military necessity.”

If left to itself, neither deterred nor preempted, Iran could threaten to bring the Jewish State face-to-face with Dante’s Inferno. Such a portentous scenario has been made more credible by the recent strategic strengthening of Iran by its tighter alignment with North Korea and its surrogate fighters in Syria, Lebanon, and Yemen. At some not-too-distant point, a coordinated Iran-Hezbollah offensive (complementing the Iran-Hamas offensive in Gaza) could signal more imminent existential perils for Israel. By definition, all such synergistic intersections would be taking place within the broadly uncertain context of “Cold War II.”

In extremis atomicum, these hazards could become so unique and formidable that employing a Samson Option would represent the only available strategic option for Israel. In the best of all possible worlds, Israel would have no need to augment or even maintain its arsenal of deterrent threat options – especially untested nuclear components – but this ideal reconfiguration of world politics remains a long way off. In that ideal world, Israel could anticipate the replacement of realpolitik (power politics) with Westphalian international politics. Such a replacement would be based on the awareness that planet Earth is an inter-dependent and organic whole.

Plainly, the time for such replacement has not yet arrived. It follows that Jerusalem will need to prepare visibly for a possible Samson Option. The point of this doctrinal imperative would not be to give preference to any actual applications of Samson, but to best ensure that Israel could deter all survival-threatening enemy aggressions.

For the moment, Israel remains in protracted war with Hamas. It can succeed in this conflict only by weakening jihadist state-sponsor Iran. In the best-case scenario, Iran would remain non-nuclear and Israeli management of Iranian terror support would remain within the bounds of conventional deterrence. If, however, Iran were permitted to cross the nuclear weapons threshold by acquiring chain-reaction nuclear weapons (not just radiation dispersal weapons), Israel’s subsequent efforts at deterrence of Iran would become vastly more problematic. At that point, ipso facto, Israel could require a Samson Option to maintain its “escalation dominance.”

There does exist an intermediate, if paradoxical, scenario for Israel. If Iran should become involved in any direct military action against Israel before becoming a fully nuclear adversary, the Jewish State could find itself with a strategic and law-enforcing opportunity to preemptively destroy Iranian nuclear infrastructures before they become operational. Though advancing such a scenario could also create the false impression of planned Israeli aggression, it would more correctly represent permissible self-defense. Most importantly, of course, such an Israeli preemption could prevent a full-scale nuclear war with Iran.

How should Israel navigate chaos? Whether in the Old Testament or in more-or-less synchronous Greek and Roman thought, chaos can be understood as something potentially positive: an intellectual tabula rasa which, if thoughtfully “filled in,” can prepare the world for all possibilities, both sacred and profane. In essence, chaos can represent an inchoate place from which an expanding civilizational opportunity can still originate.

Such thinking is unorthodox, to be sure, but for Israel it could prove manifestly useful. With such thinking, chaos is never just a “predator” that swallows everything whole: omnivorous, callous, indiscriminate, and without higher purpose. Here, chaos is considered instead as an auspicious “openness,” a protean realm from within which new kinds of opportunity can be revealed.  

This means the chaos in the Middle East need not necessarily be interpreted by Israel’s senior military planners as a harbinger of further regional violence and instability. In some hard-to-conceptualize respects, at least, such chaos could represent a condition for national security and survival. Though there are still rough seas ahead, their waves could be harnessed for a purposeful strategic direction.

Louis René Beres, Emeritus Professor of International Law at Purdue, is the author of many books and articles dealing with nuclear strategy and nuclear war, including Apocalypse: Nuclear Catastrophe in World Politics (University of Chicago Press, 1980) and Security or Armageddon: Israel’s Nuclear Strategy (D.C. Heath/Lexington, 1986). His twelfth book, Surviving Amid Chaos: Israel’s Nuclear Strategy, was published by Rowman and Littlefield in 2016. A version of this article was originally published by The BESA Center.

The post Navigating Israel’s Nuclear ‘Samson Option’ first appeared on Algemeiner.com.

Post Views: 268
Related Topics:
Continue Reading
Click to comment

You must be logged in to post a comment Login

Leave a Reply

RSS

X marks the spot where Elon Musk’s gesture is being debated, derided, defended and disputed

Hours after President Donald Trump’s inauguration, many Jewish groups sounded the alarm when Elon Musk appeared to twice deliver a Nazi salute at the Presidential Parade.

But the Jewish group most famous for fighting antisemitism had a different take.

“It seems that Elon Musk made an awkward gesture in a moment of enthusiasm, not a Nazi salute,” the Anti-Defamation League wrote Monday in a statement on Musk’s own social media platform X, referring to Musk’s outstretched-arm movement that came as he was thanking his supporters.

The ADL added, “In this moment, all sides should give one another a bit of grace, perhaps even the benefit of the doubt, and take a breath. This is a new beginning.”

Musk replied, “Thanks guys,” adding a laughing emoji.

Others were less grateful for the ADL’s response. A range of groups on the left have long opposed the ADL for what they say is an improper focus on policing pro-Palestinian speech and advocating for Israel—and they criticized the group’s reaction to Musk’s gesture. But they were joined by others who have aligned in the past with the ADL, including the pro-Israel group Zioness, which said it “vehemently disagreed with ADL’s take on Elon Musk’s behavior today.”

“When we see what is clearly a Nazi salute—without apology or clarification—we must unequivocally call it out. Orgs committed to fighting antisemitism must do so no matter where on the political spectrum it comes from,” the New York Jewish Agenda, a progressive group that has collaborated with the ADL, wrote on X. “If we can’t, we’re not ready for what’s coming.”

At a time when the ADL itself has documented historic levels of antisemitism, how did it decide to give the world’s richest man the benefit of the doubt? The group declined to say on Tuesday.

An ADL spokesperson said CEO Jonathan Greenblatt was unavailable for comment, saying he was at the global economic summit in Davos, Switzerland. Greenblatt is scheduled to speak on a Thursday panel at the forum entitled “Confronting Antisemitism amid Polarization,” alongside teachers union leader Randi Weingarten and former Harvard president Lawrence Summers, both of whom are Jewish. On X, he refrained from commenting on Musk even as he posted to thank multiple airlines for resuming flights to Israel.

The ADL also declined to elaborate on its statement or explain how it was crafted in response to inquiries from the Jewish Telegraphic Agency. But in its symbolic pardon of a billionaire who had enthusiastically bankrolled Trump’s campaign, it appeared to contradict its own definition of a Nazi salute, which states that the gesture “consists of raising an outstretched right arm with the palm down.”

The statement also raised questions among many about how the ADL plans to fight antisemitism during the second Trump administration—when a growing number of people in the president’s inner circle, including Musk, have track records that include rhetoric and actions the ADL usually condemns. Shortly after defending Musk, the group condemned Trump’s decision to pardon the Jan. 6 rioters, a group that included members of far-right extremist groups, and also praised his newly sworn-in secretary of state, Marco Rubio.

Into the void created by the ADL’s statement, Jewish and non-Jewish figures alike are deciding how meaningful Musk’s salute really is. The ADL’s own former director, Abraham Foxman, wrote on X that he considered Musk’s actions “very disconcerting,” writing, “Elon Musk may be the world’s richest man but that does not excuse his thanking the Trump supporters with a Heil Hitler Nazi salute.”

Foxman declined to comment to JTA on how the organization he helmed for decades responded to Musk. “The situation is too serious to engage in Jewish internal debates at this time,” Foxman said.

And Deborah Lipstadt, who served as the Biden administration’s special envoy combating global antisemitism until this week, downplayed the incident.

“I believe we have much, much bigger things to worry about regarding contemporary antisemitism than this particular issue,” Lipstadt told JTA, saying she was referring both to Musk’s salute and the ADL’s response. (Lipstadt separately told The Forward she accepted the ADL’s reading of the gesture as “awkward.”) The U.S. Holocaust Memorial and Museum did not respond to a request for comment on Musk’s gesture.

Others, including many progressives, were quick to denounce Musk, the ADL, or both.

“Elon Musk, the richest man in the world and a high-ranking member of the new Trump administration, gave an unambiguous Nazi salute at a post-inauguration Trump rally,” the Jewish Council of Public Affairs, a progressive group, wrote in a fundraising email topped with an image of Musk’s gesture. “We need to be prepared to call out and fight back against hate and extremism wherever we see it.”

One of the most widely shared condemnations came from Democratic Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, one of the most prominent progressive voices in Washington.

“Just to be clear, you are defending a Heil Hitler salute that was performed and repeated for emphasis and clarity,” she wrote in response to the ADL. “People can officially stop listening to you as any sort of reputable source of information now. You work for them.”

That, in turn, drew backlash from a range of voices chiding Ocasio-Cortez, who is not Jewish, for discounting the voice of a prominent Jewish group.

Zioness, which stated its “vehement” disagreement with the ADL, also accused Ocasio-Cortez of engaging in “exploitation of this moment to openly attack the most identifiable Jewish organization in America.” But it also said, “There is no such thing as an accidental Nazi salute.”

Some people encouraged each other to flood the ADL’s own antisemitic incident reporting system with reports of Musk’s gesture. Jewish actor and former “Unorthodox” podcast co-host Josh Malina, a frequent tweeter, remarked that he would “report the ADL to the ADL,” adding, “Shame on you, ADL.”

IfNotNow, a progressive Jewish group that has been a prominent voice accusing Israel of genocide, said it was “appalled that the Anti-Defamation League—which purports to be the leading organization fighting antisemitism—glossed over Musk’s Nazi gesture, admonishing those of us who were aghast at the Hitler salute to give Musk ‘the benefit of the doubt’—even as the ADL assumes the worst intentions of those in the movement for Palestinian human rights.”

The group added that the ADL’s statement “marks the completion of the ADL’s transition from a civil rights organization to a willing partner in the neo-fascist governing coalition.”

This is far from Musk’s first brush with accusations of antisemitism. Recently, he has promoted the German far-right AfD party, whose politicians have downplayed the Holocaust, along with anti-immigrant figures and causes in the United Kingdom and elsewhere. Weeks after Hamas’ Oct. 7, 2023, attack, he endorsed an antisemitic conspiracy theory shared on X as “the actual truth,” prompting many advertisers to flee the platform. He later mounted a rehabilitation effort, visiting Auschwitz (where he opined that X could have saved Jews from the Holocaust) and advocating on behalf of Israeli hostages in Gaza.

In recent months he has also praised a Tucker Carlson X interview with a Holocaust denier (though later deleted his endorsement of the video) and invited avowed antisemites, including Nick Fuentes, back onto the platform after they were banned by the site’s previous owners.

Fuentes, for his part, expressed confusion about the ADL’s post, writing, “Is there something else going on?” He did not elaborate on what he was thinking.

But some pro-Israel and conservative influencers rushed to Musk’s defense, accusing Ocasio-Cortez and other progressives of hypocrisy for not loudly condemning Nazi sympathizers and salutes at pro-Palestinian protests.

“TODAY, because Musk’s gesture looked like a Nazi salute, TODAY was the day they finally decided that Nazi salutes are BAD,” pro-Israel activist Jordyn Tilchen wrote on Instagram, in one representative post. Yet Tilchen also noted that “Musk should make a statement” about his gesture, “because there are far right extremists on neo-Nazi Telegram channels RIGHT NOW who believe it was” a Nazi salute.

Also defending Musk was Rep. Elise Stefanik, Trump’s nominee for ambassador to the United Nations, who made a name for herself by condemning university presidents for their response to antisemitism. Stefanik took part of her Senate confirmation hearing Tuesday to deny Democratic Sen. Chris Murphy’s charge that Musk had performed “two Heil Hitler salutes.”

“No, Elon Musk did not do those salutes,” Stefanik responded. “The American people are smart. They see through it. They support Elon Musk. We are proud to be the country of such successful entrepreneurs.”

Musk, for his part, pinned a video of his speech with the salute to the top of his X page. He also mocked his critics without explicitly clarifying the salute’s intent, writing on X, “Frankly, they need better dirty tricks. The ‘everyone is Hitler’ attack is sooo tired.” He called a Wikipedia page mentioning his salute “an extension of legacy media propaganda.”

Greenblatt himself has a long and tangled history with Musk, who threatened to sue the ADL when the group pledged to track hate speech on the site formerly known as Twitter after Musk first purchased it. The two appeared to make up after Oct. 7, when Musk began openly supporting Israel, visited Auschwitz and pledged to curtail anti-Zionist speech on X.

Greenblatt praised such measures even as many corporations were fleeing the platform over a spike in antisemitic content. In November 2023 he told JTA, “I will call out Elon Musk and X, like every other platform, when they get it wrong. And I will credit Elon Musk and X and every other platform when they get it right.”

The post X marks the spot where Elon Musk’s gesture is being debated, derided, defended and disputed appeared first on The Canadian Jewish News.

Post Views: 24
Continue Reading

RSS

Moroccan Tourist With US Green Card Carries Out Stabbing Attack in Tel Aviv, Wounding 4

Israeli police officers respond after a Moroccan national with a US green card carried out a stabbing attack in central Tel Aviv on Jan. 21, 2025. Photo: Ilia Yefimovich/dpaare/dpa via Reuters Connect

A Moroccan national with a US green card, who entered Israel three days ago, carried out a stabbing attack in central Tel Aviv on Tuesday evening, wounding at least four people before being shot and killed by an off duty border guard.

Abdelaziz Kaddi, 29, was found with a permanent US resident card after a female officer shot and killed him. According to Israeli reports, he entered Israel on Jan. 18 with a tourist visa with the intention to carry out a terrorist attack. It was later revealed that he had a history of inciting posts on social media.

The off duty border guard who killed Abdelaziz Kaddi after he carried out a stabbing attack in central Tel Aviv, Israel, Jan. 21, 2024. Photo: Courtesy of volunteer police officer Rani Shilat

Interior Minister Moshe Arbel disclosed that Israeli immigration officials had initially raised concerns about the suspect upon his arrival at Ben Gurion Airport. The Population and Immigration Authority, Arbel said, identified Kaddi as a potential risk and recommended denying his entry.

Border officials at Ben Gurion Airport reported that Kaddi was unable to provide clear details about the purpose of his visit to Israel, including who he was meeting or whether he intended to work in the country. Following his initial questioning, authorities denied him entry and referred him to the Shin Bet security agency for further review. Despite the initial concerns, security officials ultimately decided to grant him entry after conducting their own assessment.

“I urge Shin Bet Chief Ronen Bar to thoroughly investigate this incident and implement necessary measures to prevent similar occurrences in the future,” Arbel said in a statement.

In response to Arbel’s remarks, the Shin Bet stated that Kaddi underwent a thorough security assessment upon his arrival in Israel. This “process included an interrogation and additional checks, after which no security concerns were found that would justify denying him entry,” the security agency said, adding that the incident was under review to ensure proper procedures were followed.

The attack unfolded in two locations, Nahalat Binyamin Street and nearby Kalisher Street, a bustling area adjacent to the Carmel market frequented by locals and tourists.

Emergency responders from Magen David Adom (MDA), Israel’s national emergency medical service, said that four people — three in their twenties and one in his fifties — were listed in moderate and light condition after sustaining stabbing wounds.

Witnesses described scenes of panic as the attack unfolded. “We heard a burst of gunfire, saw people running, and rushed into a bathroom,” an eyewitness who was near the scene of the attack told Israel’s Channel 12 News. “We stepped out briefly to check if it was just the sound of a motorcycle, but then we heard another loud bang — and ran to the nearest shelter. All the while, we could hear the sound of many vehicles arriving.”

Warning: Viewer discretion is advised, as the brief clip below shows Kaddi’s dead body.


Authorities urged residents to stay away from the area as police combed the streets, searching for possible accomplices or any additional threats. Volunteer police officer Rani Shilat said the attacker arrived on a motorcycle driven by an accomplice who fled the scene and is still at large.

According to Shilat, the area quickly returned to its usual bustling state shortly after the attack.

The attack comes amid heightened security concerns in Israel, with an ongoing wave of violence in major cities including Tel Aviv, which has been the target of several attacks in recent months. Hundreds of volunteer police officers have been deployed to support the city’s law enforcement.

Israeli police patrol the streets of Tel Aviv after a stabbing attack on Jan. 21, 2024. Photo: Courtesy of volunteer police officer Rani Shilat

Shilat expressed concerns that Tel Aviv could face more attacks in the near future, attributing the threat to a growing sense of confidence among terrorists following the recent Gaza ceasefire agreement between Israel and Hamas as well as the fact that “so many murderers are now roaming the streets free.” The deal, which stipulates the release of 33 hostages from Gaza in exchange for nearly 2,000 Palestinian security prisoners, has, according to Shilat, also emboldened other potential attackers.

“It reinforces their sense of victory,” Shilat said. “Their mindset now is that even in the worst-case scenario, they’ll eventually be freed in another deal somewhere down the line.”

Security forces are working to determine whether Kaddi acted alone or had connections to extremist groups.

He had a history of expressing pro-terror sentiments on social media, frequently sharing content in support of Gaza and against Israel. Kaddi accused Israel of starving northern Gaza and posted a video praising Islam with the caption “free Palestine,” along with an image of Ibrahim Nablusi, a Palestinian Al-Aqsa Martyrs’ Brigades commander killed in Nablus who is hailed by pro-Palestinian groups as the martyr and “Lion of Nablus.”

Following Hamas’s invasion of and massacre across southern Israel on Oct. 7, 2023, Kaddi wrote about martyrdom in Islam, posting that “what is happening now may be the reason for the doubling of the number of martyrs for Islam.” His Facebook account was deleted on Tuesday evening, shortly after his identity as the attacker was revealed.

The post Moroccan Tourist With US Green Card Carries Out Stabbing Attack in Tel Aviv, Wounding 4 first appeared on Algemeiner.com.

Post Views: 25
Continue Reading

RSS

Elise Stefanik Calls Out ‘Antisemitic Rot’ At United Nations, Vows To Stress ‘The Importance of Standing With Israel’

US Rep. Elise Stefanik (R-NY) speaks during a House Education and The Workforce Committee hearing titled ‘Holding Campus Leaders Accountable and Confronting Antisemitism’ on Capitol Hill in Washington, US, Dec. 5, 2023. Photo: REUTERS/Ken Cedeno

During Tuesday’s Senate confirmation hearings, Rep. Elise Stefanik (D-NY), President Donald Trump’s pick to serve as United Nations (UN) ambassador, lambasted the “antisemitic rot” in the UN, vowing to restore “moral clarity” at the intergovernmental organization. 

“If you look at the anti-Semitic rot within the United Nations, there are more resolutions targeting Israel than any other country, any other crisis combined,” Stefanik said.

Stefanik continued by pointing out that members of the UN have refused to emphatically condemn the widely-corroborated and evidenced claims of systemic rape of Israeli women on Oct. 7 by the Hamas terrorist group. The congresswoman said she was “overjoyed” at the recent return of three Israeli female hostages—Romi Gonen, Doron Steinbrecher, and Emily Damari—from the clutches of Hamas, which was made possible by the recent ceasefire deal between the Jewish state and the terrorist group. 

“We need to stay committed to ensuring every hostage is brought home. I’ve met with many hostage families. This position, we need to be a voice of moral clarity on the UN Security Council and at the United Nations at large, for the world to hear the importance of standing with Israel, and I intend to do that,” Stefanik said. 

Stefanik, one of the most stalwart allies of the Jewish state in Congress, reflected on the upcoming 50th anniversary of the controversial and “disgraceful” UN General Assembly Resolution 3379 which defined Zionism as “a form of racism and discrimination.” 

“At the time, our UN ambassador Daniel Patrick Moynahan spoke out strongly against that disgraceful resolution. That is the type of leadership that I hope to bring if confirmed to the United Nations,” Stefanik said. 

Beyond the UN, Stefanik also discussed her views on potential West Bank annexation. Stefanik fielded questions from Sen. Chris Van Hollen (D-MD), one of the most vociferous critics of Israel in the Senate, regarding her view on the West Bank. Van Hollen asked Stefanik whether she agrees with right-wing Israeli Finance Minister Bezalel Smotrich that the Jewish state has a “biblical right to the entire West Bank.” 

“Yes,” Stefanik replied. 

Van Hollen responded that expanding Israeli sovereignty over the West Bank would prevent “peace and stability” in the Middle East. He encouraged her to rethink her position, urging her to consider the existing UN Security Council resolutions regarding the West Bank. 

Van Hollen and Stefanik also tusseled over whether Palestinians deserve “self determination” in the form of their own state. Van Hollen asserted that Stefanik privately expressed her support for a Palestinian state. However, Stefanik accused the Senator of misrepresenting her viewpoint, instead Palestinains “deserve so much better than the failures they’ve had from terrorist leadership.” 

In the year following the Hamas-led Oct. 7 terrorist attacks in southern Isarel, Stefanik has established herself as one of the most vocal allies of the Jewish state. 

While serving on the Education and the Workforce Committee, Stefanik has lambasted administrators of elite universities for their mealy-mouthed condemnations of antisemitism and tolerance of anti-Jewish violence on campus. In December 2023, Stefanik engaged in a fiery back-and-forth with the presidents of Harvard University, University of Pennsylvania, and the Massachusetts Institute of Technology over  purported antisemitic campus atmospheres.

During the 2024 presidential election, Stefanik cut a video with Republican Jewish Coalition (RJC), encouraging Jewish voters to throw their support behind Donald Trump. 

“This is the most important election cycle in our lifetime, and as we have seen on college campuses, the rot of antisemitism is real in the Democratic Party,” Stefanik said.

RJC—an organization which works to enhance ties between the Republican party and the Jewish community—praised Stefanik’s performance during the confirmation hearings. 

“By nominating Rep. [Elise Stefanik] to be the U.S. Ambassador to the UN, President Trump has sent a clear message: that we will stand by our cherished ally Israel and fight back against the vile antisemitism running rampant in Turtle Bay,” RJC wrote on X/Twitter. “RJC is proud to support Rep. Stefanik’s nomination, and strongly urges all US Senators to swiftly confirm her,” RJC continued. 

 

The post Elise Stefanik Calls Out ‘Antisemitic Rot’ At United Nations, Vows To Stress ‘The Importance of Standing With Israel’ first appeared on Algemeiner.com.

Post Views: 26
Continue Reading

Copyright © 2017 - 2023 Jewish Post & News